The point was that noone blames the wide 9 for stuff outside of Philly. And it's true.

This reasoning is flawed because we aren't exposed to media from other cities.

Fans I've asked seem to all concede that the wide-9 has similar problems that I've cited. Just because our team is currently being highly scrutinized and analyzed inside and out, it doesn't rule out that the wide-9 has had similar problems elsewhere.

I don't hear anything about the Cardinal's current quarterback, but I know somewhere he's sucking.

Just because we don't hear it, it doesn't mean it's not being said.

For reference, I don't live in Philly, or even Pennsylvania...

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

Phire wrote:

I never mentioned any of the first 3 at any point in the de-manifesto.

Exactly my point. You placed the majority of the blame on the wide 9, which is simply not true.

But that's the point of this thread... if I wanted to talk about those things I'd talk about them separately, which I've done.

And you've failed to offer anything of substance to convince me that the wide-9 isn't the root of all problems here.

You do know what "burden of proof" is, right?

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

Phire wrote:

And it never has been.

Either it matters how it works in other places or it doesn't. Figure out which argument you are using.

It would be wrong to say it doesn't matter at all and equally as wrong to say it completely matters.

a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

Scapegoating implies there is some ill-intent on my part to shift blame from one group to another who is largely undeserving.

My argument is that Washburn and the wide-9 are largely deserving of the blame. Therefore, there is no scapegoating. I'm pointing out the sick goat.

So tell me, who is more deserving of the blame? The wide-9 sucked here. Washburn and the wide-9 go hand in hand. His stubborn attitude and inflexibility is exactly how I would characterize the wide-9. That is precisely why he is the Jesus of the wide-9.

No our definition is the same. Perhaps "misguided" is a better word than "ill" as far as intent is concerned.

The wide-9 is the brunt of the problem.
I'm not scapegoating.

The problem is that you're blaming the system for coaching and player issues.

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

Phire wrote:

I've used video evidence from a previous game this year and posted their frames, asked 3 different fan bases for their personal testimony on their experiences with the system, and used sources from writers around the media.

And you have offered me opinion.

Your video evidence didn't prove what you thought it did. The personal testimony and your media sources were contradictory. And your media source was pretty much wrong. He was doing what you are doing.

1. You asked for examples. I delivered. You're pulling a "PE" on me here. You said you've never seen our ends uncovered completely. That is what you said. That is what you asked for. I showed you an instance and then you started going off-track. That is PE101.

The video evidence is two examples that a) proves my point, and b) gives you an example that you said you've never seen.

What is truly telling is that I picked a random game from this year and watched 5 minutes of film. And I found both immediately. Which indicates they happen at a rapid rate.

2) The personal testimonies are sound.
They all identified certain aspects of the wide-9 that I've mentioned in this thread.

They only contradict because the experiences were different from team to team. One team had Haynesworth and it worked. One team has Fairley and Suh and it works.

One team you claimed ran it with success, doesn't actually run it. But let's skip over that "PE style".

3) The media source only confirms what the reality is. The wide-9 stinks. And has caused a plethora of problems.

You do realize that what you just wrote is quintessential PE, right?

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

Phire wrote:

Who am I attempting to remove blame from?

Remove? I don't know. Misallocate? We've already been over that.

From what? Tackling? Effort?
These are all secondary things. The wide-9 frustrates the defense, gets a coordinator fired, which has resulted in a complete degradation of effort and other aspects.

The wide-9 corrupted the defense.

I strongly disagree.

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

Phire wrote:

The wide-9 is not a healthy goat. It needs to die as well.
And I never said the wide-9 was the ONLY PROBLEM of this defense.
Just that it is the largest problem of this defense.

And this is where we differ. Does it have issues? Yes. All defensive schemes have issues. Is it the biggest issue? No. I would say Washburn undermining the power structure was a far bigger issue. I would say he contributed to some of the other issues such as lack of consistant effort. I would say that Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of the defense properly was a bigger issue. But that is a coaching issue, not a scheme issue.

Undermining the power structure results in offenses exploiting our aggressive ends?
Obviously not. It's the same thing that happens to all aggressive defenses. This point really proves nothing.

Lack of consistent effort arose when we started losing.
Which was the fault of the wide 9? Or was it maybe turnovers? Lack of ability to adjust late in the game? Poor playcalling? A butt load of injuries?

Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of defense is directly tied by an umbilical cord to the wide-9 which was being forced down his throat!
Bowles has to deal with the same thing any other coordinator that has taken over in the middle of a season has to. This is literally no different.

I still stand by my conviction that the wide-9 was the largest problem on defense. It was always the problem. It was the problem last year before anyone heard of any internal problems or outbursts. It never did jack against the run. This season is simply just the cherry on top.
Be fair, the team was middle of the road against the run. But then JJ had a few defenses that got gashed too. Does that mean his system was an unhealthy goat?

The team had plenty of effort and was tackling well throughout Castillo's time as DC but the on-field issues were ever-present.
You do realize you just said that the on field issues were not there and then said they were, in the same sentence, right?

The wide-9 was repeatedly exposed in the 4th quarter and Juan could never adjust. How do you adjust when you're limited by the "base scheme" that you run?

My question is this: How in the whole wide world can your base scheme possibly limit you? Just because they use it as a base does not, in any way, preclude them from making adjustments as necessary. Coaching issue. Not a scheme issue.

Even the Giants have used the same technique in their Championship run.

My point is that our form of the wide-9, thanks to Washburn, is not only the base formation but also the basis of our defense.

It causes problems.

Indeed it does. So pretty much the only time a wide-9 defense has been successful is because the team had elite players in the scheme, noticeably at DT. WOW what a shock! Clearly, there is a finite amount of elite DTs and even more clear is that none of them are on the Eagles. I said it last year that even with an improved LB core, which we have this year, we will not have any success running this scheme.

Why? Because running this as a base defense creates so many mismatches and extra assignments for players, it is ridiculous. So as we have discussed in previous threads the DEs have one responsibility, get to the passer. Well, that immediately takes 2 guys out of run defense, so you are already at a disadvantage essentially playing with 9 players. You have DTs that are recklessly shooting gaps and no one on the d-line plays with any control because after all, their job is to get to the QB. This already makes the defense extremely susceptible to any form of draw plays or screen passes, or even quick hitting dives. Now you want your 250 pound LB to shed the block of an incoming lineman as well as make a play on the ball carrier, that is reasonable. To help him you have your sure tackling safeties (not so much in our case) playing harder down field. Well, now you better pray your CBs can handle minimal over the top help because these guys are going to be down in the alleys all game.

The wide-9 is a selfish scheme. It may put up sexy numbers for the d-line but at what cost? Everyone else on the field has to make up for a d-line that's only objective is to get up field. How do people not see this as a problem? The Lions never boast a remotely competent defense and as someone pointed out the Titans were a good defense before this scheme, it isn't like this put them over the top. If you have elite players in key positions or someone as disruptive as an Albert Haynesworth you'll find success running just about anything. Hey, I got an idea why don't we take one of our best defensive players, Trent Cole and get rid of his greatest strength (run defense) yes, that is logical. The Eagles didn't have close to the personnel to run this awful scheme, and we saw last year how bad we got gashed until we started tightening it up toward the end of the year.

This isn't to say it was just the scheme, though it deserves a majority of the blame IMO. We've seen some pisspoor play from our players as well, namely at the safety position. But I can't help but pity them, because they have such a tough job having to constantly be concerned about getting gashed in the run game and then worry about the ball going over their head when the d-lien doesn't even get the pressure it is supposed to._________________
Bird Watch: Nolan Carroll

Why we are all guilty of using this scheme as a scapegoat a little bit, we're desparate at this point, it really is a flawed scheme. I was skeptical of it from the start, sounds gimmicky and something I would do and did do in Madden as a kid._________________Bird Watch: Jordan Matthews: 42 Rec // 507 Yds // 3 TDs

The fact Wabbit actually has the audacity to deny hard evidence that shows the DEs literally being unblocked says it all. I've seen it countless times, it reminds me of the Jevon Kearse days toward the end of his tenure here, where he would go rogue and take himself out of plays and teams exploited that. Pathetic and selfish.

I would love to see what the average yardage against us was on screens and bubble screens because our d-line was consistently nowhere to help. Again players didn't execute but you have to put them in a good position to do so, and this scheme right off the bat puts them in a bind._________________
Bird Watch: Nolan Carroll

Yes, and if you're going to make a counter-argument I expect you to offer some proof.

I've continued to offer evidence and will continue to do so. Here's a unique perspective on the wide-9, who is neither fan, media personnel, nor coach. But a player.

Fred Jackson

Quote:

After the Bills’ Fred Jackson racked up 196 total yards last week, he credited the wide nine for his success. Especially on the screen passes.
“Again, wide nines,” Jackson said. “They like to get upfield and we knew as long as we could get that nine [the widest defensive end] upfield, we could get under him and be able to spring off it.”

Now I understand there are seemingly two main arguments going on right now.

1. Was the wide-9 responsible for the problems?
2. Does the wide-9 have intrinsic flaws?

My argument is that, before any internal power tensions erupted, before effort was clearly degrading, and before the big clash that occurred this year, the wide-9 was already ruining this team from early 2011.

This resulted in the Washburn melt-down, the release of wide-9 torch bearer Jason Babin, and the firing of wide-9 Messiah Jim Washburn.

To me, it follows very logically.

killdawabbit wrote:

The problem with that is that you've used both arguments.

And I have the right to do so when taken into context.
I feel it is significant to point out that a system was never legitimized, by my criteria, by any other contemporary team.

In response to the points I've made on the first page, I did not take into account what other teams were doing around the league, and I don't feel I need to.

My observations were of the Philadelphia Eagles, independent of any other team, city or system. Therefore, I can use it both.

I am not going to continue to play the PowerElite "cat-and-mouse" argument. You've successfully narrowed football discussion to semantics and petty avoidance of the bigger picture.

killdawabbit wrote:

The problem is that you're blaming the system for coaching and player issues.

Because the system came BEFORE the player and coaching issues.
This is an "chicken and egg" situation where clearly one was present before the other.

There were reports of the wide-9's flaws eons before any emergence of these ugly reports we have now. The coaches and players alike were frustrated and fatigued by the limitations and shortcomings of the wide-9.

They say winning cures everything. If the scheme was effective and the team was winning games, Castillo would still be here, Washburn would be all smiles, and Trent Cole and Jason Babin would be in pro-bowl talks.

If winning is a cure, then losing is an ailment.
My argument is that the wide-9 was the poison, and Washburn the apothecary.

The wide-9's problems made it tough on the secondary which reduced their effort and drive.

The wide-9's inflexibility restricted our coordinator's ability to get creative.

The wide-9's shortcomings resulted in losses which increased the problems we've had before.

killdawabbit wrote:

You do realize that what you just wrote is quintessential PE, right?

No, this is PE:

Quote:

I actually have yet to see linemen letting our ends run free outside of setting up a screen pass.

Obviously not. It's the same thing that happens to all aggressive defenses. This point really proves nothing.

Because you've missed the point. The aggressive style was being exploited long before the other problems erupted.
I'm talking about chronology.

Quote:

Quote:

Lack of consistent effort arose when we started losing.

Which was the fault of the wide 9? Or was it maybe turnovers? Lack of ability to adjust late in the game? Poor playcalling? A butt load of injuries?

We've been losing in the 4th quarter when offenses decided to use every trick in the book to exploit the wide-9.

Quote:

Quote:

Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of defense is directly tied by an umbilical cord to the wide-9 which was being forced down his throat!

Bowles has to deal with the same thing any other coordinator that has taken over in the middle of a season has to. This is literally no different.

It's different. Every other coordinator is given the power to coordinate the defense. That is his job.

Washburn and the wide-9 does not allow him to coordinate the defense. The wide-9 coordinates our defense.

And aren't you the one saying Washburn severely undermined the power structure? Is this too something every mid-season take over inherits?

Quote:

Quote:

I still stand by my conviction that the wide-9 was the largest problem on defense. It was always the problem. It was the problem last year before anyone heard of any internal problems or outbursts. It never did jack against the run. This season is simply just the cherry on top.

Be fair, the team was middle of the road against the run. But then JJ had a few defenses that got gashed too. Does that mean his system was an unhealthy goat?

I very much remember threads here talking about how Jim Johnson's defense was outdated and how excessive blitzing was being exploited.

Since his passing he has been rightfully revered in our hearts and minds, but we can't forget that it wasn't a perfect defense.

There were times Deuce McAllister would completely destroy our team.
There were times we couldn't get pressure on the opposing quarterback.
There were times we couldn't get turnovers.

But Jim Johnson had the flexibility to adjust for all those things. We've had arguments about the 1-gap, 2-gap systems. We've changed our defense under Johnson to fix the wrongs.

The wide-9 does no such thing.

Quote:

Quote:

The team had plenty of effort and was tackling well throughout Castillo's time as DC but the on-field issues were ever-present.

You do realize you just said that the on field issues were not there and then said they were, in the same sentence, right?

Because you're pulling a PE on me.
Effort and tackling were not problems under Castillo.

But on-field issues were.

Only PE would assume to lump those together to fit his own argument. It's quite obvious and reasonable to assume the on-field issues were meant to be the issues caused by the wide-9, which I hold separate from tackling and effort.

Quote:

Quote:

The wide-9 was repeatedly exposed in the 4th quarter and Juan could never adjust. How do you adjust when you're limited by the "base scheme" that you run?

My question is this: How in the whole wide world can your base scheme possibly limit you? Just because they use it as a base does not, in any way, preclude them from making adjustments as necessary. Coaching issue. Not a scheme issue.

It's a scheme issue. The wide-9 isn't the base defense. It's the basis of our defense. The wide-9 is as stubborn and inflexible as Washburn. Which is saying something._________________

Can I just make it clear, once again, that I don't think the wide-9 is the only problem with our team?

There are dozens of things that went wrong, moves that never should have been made, miscalculations, bad personnel decisions, lack of skill, lack of talent, lack of coaching, lack of execution, lack of health, etc. etc.

Can I just make it clear, once again, that I don't think the wide-9 is the only problem with our team?

There are dozens of things that went wrong, moves that never should have been made, miscalculations, bad personnel decisions, lack of skill, lack of talent, lack of coaching, lack of execution, lack of health, etc. etc.

OK, let's start here. You obviously do not understand "burden of proof'. You cannot simply flip it over onto me. You are the one making the assertation that the wide 9 is the most significant problem with the defense. I am saying that I strongly disagree and (easily) poking holes in your "proof". You are the prosecution. The entirety of the burden of proof is on you. Think of it as a courtroom with you as the prosecutor and the wide 9 as the defendant. Like it or not, that is how "burden of proof" actually works. Right now a jury that was being honest with themselves would have no choice but to find the defendant "not guilty" (which is not the same thing as "innocent", but you don't attempt to prove innocence, you prove guilt).

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

For reference, I don't live in Philly, or even Pennsylvania...

Beautiful.

You understand that I am pointing out that I am not subject to the same local media bias' as you, right?

Phire wrote:

Now I understand there are seemingly two main arguments going on right now.

1. Was the wide-9 responsible for the problems?
2. Does the wide-9 have intrinsic flaws?

My argument is that, before any internal power tensions erupted, before effort was clearly degrading, and before the big clash that occurred this year, the wide-9 was already ruining this team from early 2011.

This resulted in the Washburn melt-down, the release of wide-9 torch bearer Jason Babin, and the firing of wide-9 Messiah Jim Washburn.

To me, it follows very logically.

For starters, I would agree with your #2 here. It does have flaws. It sacrifices against the run in an attempt to create more pressure against the pass. I think this is a moot point.

As for your #1 and the argument for it, I would say this:

At the beginning of last year before Castillo learned to adjust the defense had issues. As the season went on, he figured some things out and the defense improved...dramatically. I see zero proof that the wide 9 itsself was to blame. What's interesting is that even this year, with the poor sack numbers, the Eagles defense held opposing QBs to one of the lowest ratings in the NFL. Basically, there is no evidence that the system was "clearly degrading" anything. Now I would point out that Washburn's insubordination was clearly going on longer than we realize. It was almost from the beginning. Based on many quotes that have appeared in this very forum. Babin being released and Washburn's "meltdown" are simply the results of a year and a half long pressure cooker finally exploding.

To me, this follows much more logically than your version.

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

The problem with that is that you've used both arguments.

And I have the right to do so when taken into context.
I feel it is significant to point out that a system was never legitimized, by my criteria, by any other contemporary team.

In response to the points I've made on the first page, I did not take into account what other teams were doing around the league, and I don't feel I need to.

My observations were of the Philadelphia Eagles, independent of any other team, city or system. Therefore, I can use it both.

I am not going to continue to play the PowerElite "cat-and-mouse" argument. You've successfully narrowed football discussion to semantics and petty avoidance of the bigger picture.

I have not played any kind of "cat and mouse". My point has been very consistant: You simply do not hear the same outcry from fans and media against this system from other teams that use it. If you don't find that relevant, I don't know what to tell you as it is the height of relevance. If it is the fault (or even mostly the fault) of the system, why is it not denigrated in other places where it is used?

Phire wrote:

Because the system came BEFORE the player and coaching issues.
This is an "chicken and egg" situation where clearly one was present before the other.

There were reports of the wide-9's flaws eons before any emergence of these ugly reports we have now. The coaches and players alike were frustrated and fatigued by the limitations and shortcomings of the wide-9.

They say winning cures everything. If the scheme was effective and the team was winning games, Castillo would still be here, Washburn would be all smiles, and Trent Cole and Jason Babin would be in pro-bowl talks.

If winning is a cure, then losing is an ailment.
My argument is that the wide-9 was the poison, and Washburn the apothecary.

The wide-9's problems made it tough on the secondary which reduced their effort and drive.

The wide-9's inflexibility restricted our coordinator's ability to get creative.

The wide-9's shortcomings resulted in losses which increased the problems we've had before.

By all reports Washburn was a jerk nearly from the beginning. He attempted to create his own little feifdom with the DL almost right away. Just because it didn;t come out until his firing, does not mean that this is when it began. It's clearly not a chicken and egg scenario.

As for the rest, that is all opinion and conjecture.

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

You do realize that what you just wrote is quintessential PE, right?

No, this is PE:

Quote:

I actually have yet to see linemen letting our ends run free outside of setting up a screen pass.

No, not at all. What is PE-like (good lord, he must love this, he has an argument style that is practically named for him...) is you taking a bit of mild hyperbole on my part and manufacturing an argument from it that doesn't prove your point in the first place. You're insistance that "this is precisely what you said" shows a lack of understanding of context. I'll concede your point (as it goes with your #2 above), the wide 9 is subject to the same issues as other aggressive defensive systems. Happy? This does not, however, really prove anything regarding its culpability in this conversation.

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

Phire wrote:

The wide-9 corrupted the defense.

I strongly disagree.

If you're going to proclaim a counter argument, you naturally inherit the burden of proof. I'm still waiting.

This is absolutely, 100%, false. Once again you do not understand how the burden of proof in an argument works. In other news, you can't prove a negative anyway, so I have no idea what you would be asking for.

Phire wrote:

Phire wrote:

Undermining the power structure results in offenses exploiting our aggressive ends?
Obviously not. It's the same thing that happens to all aggressive defenses. This point really proves nothing.

Because you've missed the point. The aggressive style was being exploited long before the other problems erupted.
I'm talking about chronology.

This couldn't be more irrelevant. Plus it has been addressed already.

Phire wrote:

Quote:

Lack of consistent effort arose when we started losing.
Which was the fault of the wide 9? Or was it maybe turnovers? Lack of ability to adjust late in the game? Poor playcalling? A butt load of injuries?

We've been losing in the 4th quarter when offenses decided to use every trick in the book to exploit the wide-9.

Lack of ability to adjust points to a coaching issue, not a scheme issue.

Phire wrote:

Quote:

Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of defense is directly tied by an umbilical cord to the wide-9 which was being forced down his throat!
Bowles has to deal with the same thing any other coordinator that has taken over in the middle of a season has to. This is literally no different.

It's different. Every other coordinator is given the power to coordinate the defense. That is his job.

Washburn and the wide-9 does not allow him to coordinate the defense. The wide-9 coordinates our defense.

And aren't you the one saying Washburn severely undermined the power structure? Is this too something every mid-season take over inherits?

I'm not sure at all how you intend to tie this to being a scheme issue rather than a coaching issue.

You said Washburn did not allow him to coordinate the defense. I can see where that could be true.

You said the wide 9 did not allow him to coordinate the defense, and I couldn't disagree more. The only argument you might have in your favor on that point is his lack of understanding how to use it properly. That is, of course, a coaching issue.

When a coordinator takes over in the middle of the season, he generally inherits the currently installed scheme as there is little time to completely overhaul into a new one. How is Bowles situation different in regards to scheme (being as that's what you're arguing as the culprit)?

Phire wrote:

Quote:

I still stand by my conviction that the wide-9 was the largest problem on defense. It was always the problem. It was the problem last year before anyone heard of any internal problems or outbursts. It never did jack against the run. This season is simply just the cherry on top.
Be fair, the team was middle of the road against the run. But then JJ had a few defenses that got gashed too. Does that mean his system was an unhealthy goat?

I very much remember threads here talking about how Jim Johnson's defense was outdated and how excessive blitzing was being exploited.

Since his passing he has been rightfully revered in our hearts and minds, but we can't forget that it wasn't a perfect defense.

There were times Deuce McAllister would completely destroy our team.
There were times we couldn't get pressure on the opposing quarterback.
There were times we couldn't get turnovers.

But Jim Johnson had the flexibility to adjust for all those things. We've had arguments about the 1-gap, 2-gap systems. We've changed our defense under Johnson to fix the wrongs.

The wide-9 does no such thing.

You are going to have to explain to me how a defensive scheme prevents a coach from adjusting. The very idea is absurd. Now if you want to say that Washburn's insistence on control of the DL prevented or caused issues with it, I would say that has merit. But it is not, in any way, the same thing. Once again, coaching issue.

Quote:

Quote:

The team had plenty of effort and was tackling well throughout Castillo's time as DC but the on-field issues were ever-present.
You do realize you just said that the on field issues were not there and then said they were, in the same sentence, right?

Because you're pulling a PE on me.
Effort and tackling were not problems under Castillo.

But on-field issues were.

Only PE would assume to lump those together to fit his own argument. It's quite obvious and reasonable to assume the on-field issues were meant to be the issues caused by the wide-9, which I hold separate from tackling and effort.

Once again, which argument are you making? According to you the wide 9 was the culprit for the majority of the defenses problems. You have asserted that the wide 9 "frustrated the defese" (pure conjecture, BTW). In this very post you specifically stated that:

Phire wrote:

The wide-9's problems made it tough on the secondary which reduced their effort and drive.

How's come they "had effort and drive" with Castillo, then?

Phire wrote:

Quote:

The wide-9 was repeatedly exposed in the 4th quarter and Juan could never adjust. How do you adjust when you're limited by the "base scheme" that you run?

My question is this: How in the whole wide world can your base scheme possibly limit you? Just because they use it as a base does not, in any way, preclude them from making adjustments as necessary. Coaching issue. Not a scheme issue.

It's a scheme issue. The wide-9 isn't the base defense. It's the basis of our defense. The wide-9 is as stubborn and inflexible as Washburn. Which is saying something.

So you're telling me that strictly because of the base alignment of the front 4 that the coach cannot make adjustments? Patently absurd. How was Castillo able to implement the double 3's? How were the Eagles able to use 5 DL in the Dallas game? How about Castillo moving one end or the other in on running downs? This claim is completely outrageous.

1. The Eagles are currently 31st in the NFL in takeaways with 10.
2a. The Eagles have been penalized 95 times on defense. Good for 31st in the NFL.
2b. On those 95 penalties, the Eagles have given up 809 free yards to opposing offenses. Also good for 31st in the NFL.
3. The Eagles are currently 28th in the NFL in sacks with 20.
4. Opposing QBs have a combined 98.8 QB Rating against the Eagles. Good for 28th in the NFL.
5. The Eagles allow opposing offense to convert 39.7% of 3rd down conversions. Good for 21st in the NFL.

I don't care if you run a base wide-9, base 3-4, or a base 1-5-5 nickel FFS, you're not going to be successful if you don't cause turnovers, and you're the 2nd most penalized defense in the NFL. Couple that with the fact that your secondary is largely devoid of talent, and your defensive line coach is calling his boss "Juanita", and you have a recipe for disaster that only maestro Andy Reid could concoct. It's worse than a soap opera, and it's disgusting. It's like a traveling circus act that never leaves town. This entire defense is a joke, and it ain't just the wide-9's fault. It's the players' fault. They just suck.

OK, let's start here. You obviously do not understand "burden of proof'. You cannot simply flip it over onto me. You are the one making the assertation that the wide 9 is the most significant problem with the defense. I am saying that I strongly disagree and (easily) poking holes in your "proof". You are the prosecution. The entirety of the burden of proof is on you. Think of it as a courtroom with you as the prosecutor and the wide 9 as the defendant. Like it or not, that is how "burden of proof" actually works.

I've assumed burden of proof and I've offered it to you on a silver platter. I've used multiple variations of proof, from personal observation, fan testimony from 3 different towns, player testimony, and media testimony.

You cannot simply tell me my proof is wrong, or that I'm lacking in proof without offering some proof yourself.

This is a mutual argument. I am not being tried. I am offering an argument and you are offering a counter argument.

If you want your counter argument to be taken in any seriousness, you better offer some proof that counters my proof. Why is this so difficult?

Quote:

Right now a jury that was being honest with themselves would have no choice but to find the defendant "not guilty" (which is not the same thing as "innocent", but you don't attempt to prove innocence, you prove guilt).

The people have spoken, it seems as if almost everyone in this thread unanimously agrees with me.

So not only are you playing the defendant refusing to offer any counter arguments of substance, but you're also playing the minority representative of the dissenting opinion, yet, you're also playing judge and favoring that minority judgment.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

killdawabbit wrote:

For reference, I don't live in Philly, or even Pennsylvania...

Beautiful.

You understand that I am pointing out that I am not subject to the same local media bias' as you, right?

You understand that what you just said completely reiterates my previous point on this matter?
You are not in Philadelphia, therefore, you are not exposed to the same local media.

This is something you just said.
Nonetheless, just because you aren't exposed to it, does not mean it does not exist. Correct?

So since I don't live in Cincinnati, nor do I live in Tennessee, nor do I live in Detroit... and since it's reasonable to assume neither do you, how can you possibly point to the lack of our exposure to negative media toward the scheme as evidence that there never was any?

Your logic is flawed here.

Quote:

At the beginning of last year before Castillo learned to adjust the defense had issues. As the season went on, he figured some things out and the defense improved...dramatically. I see zero proof that the wide 9 itsself was to blame. What's interesting is that even this year, with the poor sack numbers, the Eagles defense held opposing QBs to one of the lowest ratings in the NFL. Basically, there is no evidence that the system was "clearly degrading" anything. Now I would point out that Washburn's insubordination was clearly going on longer than we realize. It was almost from the beginning. Based on many quotes that have appeared in this very forum. Babin being released and Washburn's "meltdown" are simply the results of a year and a half long pressure cooker finally exploding.

To me, this follows much more logically than your version.

Remember when you talked about burden of proof? A good defense council also ponies up proof, but I don't see anything here. Just your own testimony.

The same testimony that claimed you've never seen an end left unblocked (disproved immediately) and the same testimony that claimed Cincinnati ran the wide-9 (disproved).

Here's some evidence:
A 2011 publication already questioning the results of the wide-9.

Quote:

When looking at the numbers, it's difficult to find much to like about the Eagles' defense through the first five games.

They are allowing 26.4 points per game, tied for sixth-worst. Opponents are scoring touchdowns at a rate of 78.57 percent in the red zone, worst in the NFL, and even worse than last year's mark.

Quarterbacks have a rating of 104.3 (third-worst) against the Eagles, and they have allowed 11 passing touchdowns (second-worst). Against the run, they are allowing 5.0 yards per carry (sixth-worst).

This is a top to bottom embarrassment of a defense, and the problems never really went away. Surely, at the end the Eagles went on a nice little run against inferior opponents.

Did Washburn immediately start to make a mockery of his situation? Yes, I believe so. But I don't think those problems were as big of a deal in the first few weeks of the regular season.

What was already showing was the glaring sacrifices the wide-9 meant for the rest of the defense. This is a defensive secondary that featured Asante Samuel, Nnamdi Asomugha, and Dominique Rogers-Cromartie.

It is reasonable, and logical, to assume their problems were not caused by a lack of talent at corner, but because some other aspects of the defense were significantly degrading their performance and ability to operate within this defense.

The wide-9 was immediately scrutinized for its shortcomings FAR BEFORE anyone ever mentioned Washburn being cranky at practice.

Also while there is sufficient evidence citing the wide-9 as problematic from the first few weeks of 2011, we lack evidence of when the problems internally truly began. Therefore it is impossible to prove without further evidence.

killdawabbit wrote:

I have not played any kind of "cat and mouse". My point has been very consistant: You simply do not hear the same outcry from fans and media against this system from other teams that use it. If you don't find that relevant, I don't know what to tell you as it is the height of relevance. If it is the fault (or even mostly the fault) of the system, why is it not denigrated in other places where it is used?

You said it yourself, you're not living in Philadelphia therefore you're not exposed to its media.

I'm not living in any of those cities, and neither are you (unless you're continuing to conceal it). Therefore it's reasonable to assume we wouldn't be exposed to such complaints.

It is UNREASONABLE to assume that because we do not hear it, that it does not exist.
Also it is paramount to keep in mind this is probably the purest form of the wide-9 that exists.

Quote:

By all reports Washburn was a jerk nearly from the beginning. He attempted to create his own little feifdom with the DL almost right away. Just because it didn;t come out until his firing, does not mean that this is when it began. It's clearly not a chicken and egg scenario.

It doesn't say right away. We don't know when that started. We don't even know who is saying this. There is lacking evidence of when the most dire problems had arisen.

Quote:

As for the rest, that is all opinion and conjecture.

Which is what your entire argument is based on.

killdawabbit wrote:

No, not at all. What is PE-like (good lord, he must love this, he has an argument style that is practically named for him...) is you taking a bit of mild hyperbole on my part and manufacturing an argument from it that doesn't prove your point in the first place. You're insistance that "this is precisely what you said" shows a lack of understanding of context. I'll concede your point (as it goes with your #2 above), the wide 9 is subject to the same issues as other aggressive defensive systems. Happy? This does not, however, really prove anything regarding its culpability in this conversation.

There is a difference between hyperbole and making a generalized statement taken as fact. I am not taking anything out of context, I have the entire argument at the click of a mouse. I am looking at it right now. The context is clear. I see no indication of hyperbole, I see a generalized statement that you used as fact to counter my argument.

It just so happens that I found a perfect counterexample 5 minutes into my research.

killdawabbit wrote:

Phire wrote:

If you're going to proclaim a counter argument, you naturally inherit the burden of proof. I'm still waiting.

This is absolutely, 100%, false. Once again you do not understand how the burden of proof in an argument works. In other news, you can't prove a negative anyway, so I have no idea what you would be asking for.

Every defense council has to strengthen their argument using proof.

If I say this plate is blue, you can't just say "no it's not".
If I offer you a color chart and clearly show that the color blue is indicated by the chart, you cannot continue to say "no it's not."
If I offer a testimony from an artist who knows his colors, and he validates my claims, you cannot simply say "no it's not" and expect to win this argument.

Offer something of substance. By counterclaiming you are yourself making a new argument. Therefore, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, offer some proof, offer some evidence.

Until you do so, you're not making a strong argument. You're using opinion and not fact. And your opinions that you've tried to pass as fact are not backed by any sources.

For example why don't you find me an article that contradicts exactly what I've said?
Not only does that legitimize your argument, it also adds real substance to it.

If you're going to tell me my blue plate is in fact red, there is by default a burden of proof for YOU to substantiate your claim.

This is not a court of law. You are not just simply refuting my claims to win. You are advancing your own thesis:
The problems were not caused by the wide-9, they were in fact caused by other factors.
Therefore your claims are no different than what I've done in my first post and I expect you to substantiate them with proof. Until you do so, your argument is weak and just reeks of opinion.

Quote:

Phire wrote:

Quote:

Lack of consistent effort arose when we started losing.
Which was the fault of the wide 9? Or was it maybe turnovers? Lack of ability to adjust late in the game? Poor playcalling? A butt load of injuries?

We've been losing in the 4th quarter when offenses decided to use every trick in the book to exploit the wide-9.

Lack of ability to adjust points to a coaching issue, not a scheme issue.

Have you ever considered that the scheme prevents any real adjustments from being made?

Quote:

Phire wrote:

Quote:

Bowles not understanding how to use that aspect of defense is directly tied by an umbilical cord to the wide-9 which was being forced down his throat!
Bowles has to deal with the same thing any other coordinator that has taken over in the middle of a season has to. This is literally no different.

It's different. Every other coordinator is given the power to coordinate the defense. That is his job.

Washburn and the wide-9 does not allow him to coordinate the defense. The wide-9 coordinates our defense.

And aren't you the one saying Washburn severely undermined the power structure? Is this too something every mid-season take over inherits?

I'm not sure at all how you intend to tie this to being a scheme issue rather than a coaching issue.

Because the wide-9 prevents adjustments and dictates the rest of our defense...

Quote:

You said Washburn did not allow him to coordinate the defense. I can see where that could be true.

You said the wide 9 did not allow him to coordinate the defense, and I couldn't disagree more. The only argument you might have in your favor on that point is his lack of understanding how to use it properly. That is, of course, a coaching issue.

The wide-9 is the wide-9 whether you're playing a run oriented team or a pass oriented team. The wide-9 is the wide-9 whether you're up by 40 or down by 40.

It never changes. It doesn't adjust. It doesn't adapt. It has one goal in mind. It doesn't care what the offense is doing.

It's a scheme issue.

Quote:

When a coordinator takes over in the middle of the season, he generally inherits the currently installed scheme as there is little time to completely overhaul into a new one. How is Bowles situation different in regards to scheme (being as that's what you're arguing as the culprit)?

The scheme is preventing anything to be done.

Quote:

You are going to have to explain to me how a defensive scheme prevents a coach from adjusting. The very idea is absurd. Now if you want to say that Washburn's insistence on control of the DL prevented or caused issues with it, I would say that has merit. But it is not, in any way, the same thing. Once again, coaching issue.

It is widely known that the wide-9 has intrinsic flaws against the run.
If the wide-9 itself which causes the problem isn't willing to change (because it simply cannot), how do you expect the other components of the defense to adjust properly without sacrificing some other element of the defense?

The wide-9 DOES NOT FIX ITSELF therefore it DICTATES what the rest of the defense can do. This is schematic.

In a traditional 4-3 defense, you have your ends play more at the line if the opposing offense has a running quarterback.
In a traditional 4-3 defense, you have your ends play aggressive if you need to make a big play.
In a traditional 4-3 defense, you can create all sorts of problems masking blitzes and DL stunts to confuse the quarterback. You can even run blitz.

With the wide-9, your ends are doing the same thing regardless of who is at QB.
With the wide-9, your ends are always aggressive.
With the wide-9, your blitzing options are limited and you really can't use too many stunts because of alignment.

In a traditional defense, if you come out with an aggressive mentality and it does not work in the first half, you can remedy it by doing something different in the second half.

With the wide-9, the defensive line isn't changing anything, even if the scheme is causing problems, it does not remedy itself.

This is why the scheme sucks. This is why the scheme dictates what you can and can't do.

Quote:

Once again, which argument are you making? According to you the wide 9 was the culprit for the majority of the defenses problems. You have asserted that the wide 9 "frustrated the defese" (pure conjecture, BTW). In this very post you specifically stated that:

Phire wrote:

The wide-9's problems made it tough on the secondary which reduced their effort and drive.

How's come they "had effort and drive" with Castillo, then?

Because you're taking a case that I've presented and applying your own chronology to them. The frustration occurred over the long run. The frustration began in 2011, but got progressively worse to the point where there was a lack of concentration, focus, and effort.

Asomugha was constantly frustrated since the moment he got here. He played hard until the constant exposure and pressures from the horrible defensive line scheme sucked the life out of him. This culminated with the firing of Castillo. The frustration was NOT immediate.

Quote:

My question is this: How in the whole wide world can your base scheme possibly limit you? Just because they use it as a base does not, in any way, preclude them from making adjustments as necessary. Coaching issue. Not a scheme issue.

I explained this.
Wide-9 creates own problems just because it's the wide-9.
Wide-9 never changes to fix those problems.
Wide-9 doesn't change according to game situation.
Therefore the wide-9 cannot remedy itself.
Therefore the wide-9 cannot adjust itself.
Therefore no matter what you do your cannot adjust your defense.

Quote:

So you're telling me that strictly because of the base alignment of the front 4 that the coach cannot make adjustments? Patently absurd. How was Castillo able to implement the double 3's? How were the Eagles able to use 5 DL in the Dallas game? How about Castillo moving one end or the other in on running downs? This claim is completely outrageous.

We have every game available to us at the palms of our hands.
Since you continue to make claims to the last drops of your argument without any evidence, allow me to.

I have a video of every snap Fletcher Cox took against the New York Giants.
My argument to your last segment is that the simple wide-9 form is used at an overwhelming majority of time. The other looks are forced, they are hardly any real adjustments. They are gimmicks utilized in desperate times.